Rathbun v. Alexander

1 Cal. Unrep. 664
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 13, 1871
DocketNo. 2398
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 664 (Rathbun v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rathbun v. Alexander, 1 Cal. Unrep. 664 (Cal. 1871).

Opinion

CROCKETT, J.

— If the plaintiff established the actual possession of any portion of the mining ground in controversy at the time of the defendants’ entry, the nonsuit was improperly granted. As against a mere intruder, having no better right of entry than himself, if the plaintiff had the actual possession, he is entitled to be protected in it; and this court has had occasion in several eases to consider what acts of dominion will constitute an actual possession of mining' ground: English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107, 76 Am. Dec. 574; Hess v. Winder, 30 Cal. 349. I think the plaintiff brought himself clearly within the rule established in these eases as to a portion, if not to the whole, of the ground in contest. The testimony certainly tended strongly to establish the actual possession of the plaintiff as to a portion, at least, of the demanded premises; and this made out a prima facie case against the defendants as to this portion, at least. The nonsuit was improperly granted.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

We concur: Rhodes, C. J.; Wallace, J.; Sprague, J.; Temple, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

English v. Johnson
17 Cal. 107 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
Hess v. Winder
30 Cal. 349 (California Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Cal. Unrep. 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rathbun-v-alexander-cal-1871.